Sunday, July 10, 2016

A while back, someone told me that 'Dave Friedman' who went to Columbia was Donald Trump's adviser on Israel.

There were (at least) two Dave Friedman's who started Columbia with me who eventually became lawyers. One, with whom I have been in touch over the years through friends, is a partner at a Manhattan law firm. The other, who actually overlapped with me for a year at NYU law (I took two years off between college and law school to study in yeshiva in Israel) was someone I had not seen since he graduated law school in 1981. I googled and found the picture above. Unmistakable. Definitely the wisecracking Dave Friedman who went to college and law school with me.

"It ought to be time to at least take a
fresh look at this," Friedman said, adding that he believes even many
Arabs in the West Bank may prefer Israeli rule to a Palestinian state.
"The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don't think it's the
only answer anymore."

Friedman was the Trump adviser who told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz two weeks ago that Trump may be open to Israel annexing part of the West Bank, which is counter to stated U.S. policy.

Friedman told CNN this week that he was
responding to a hypothetical situation and saying there may be
circumstances where that is true, rather than putting it forward as a
policy position.

But he also
indicated to CNN that Trump could be amenable to the changes the Iron
Dome Alliance is seeking, though he didn't comment on specific language.

He
said the mogul would support a policy of not "imposing" U.S. will on
Israel. Other policy positions would include an undivided Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, regional military and technological superiority
for the nation and showing "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel in
public.

For the record, the Iron Dome Alliance is a group started by Jeff Ballaboon, who follows me on Twitter and likely reads this blog from time to time.

These reports raise a number of significant concerns and more than a few questions, such as:

Under what circumstances can you imagine another “answer” would be preferable?

What would another “answer” look like? How would it be developed? Implemented?

How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for Israel?

How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for the Palestinians?

Do you believe Israel can have peace and security without the Palestinians having the same?

I ask these questions because it seems axiomatic that the
alternative to two states is one state. Such a state would either be a
Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise
millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to
be Jewish. It would put the fate of the Jewish State of Israel in the
hands of extremists on all sides, exposing the region to an endless
cycle of violence. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to you?
They are not acceptable to us, and that is why the Reform Movement has a
longstanding position in support of a two-state solution.

I write with a sense of deep concern. As I hope and trust you know, a
two-state solution has been a bedrock of American foreign policy for
decades, supported by every American President – Democratic and
Republican alike – since at least President George W. Bush in 2002. It
is also the policy of the Israeli government, and has been the policy of
every Israeli government since Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo
Accords at the White House in 1993.

Only two states for two people can end the conflict and offer hope and
security to a part of the world that needs and deserves them, a region
that is of vital interest to the United States in all of our nation’s
foreign policy concerns.

No one familiar with the current reality can doubt that there remain
significant obstacles to achieving a two-state solution, but that
doesn’t mean it is no longer the preferred solution. Any comments
suggesting otherwise undermine responsible Middle East policy.

For all these reasons and more, I was taken aback to read Mr. Friedman’s
suggestion that another “answer” might make more sense, especially
because he did not offer any ideas about what such an alternative might
be. To talk about discarding such a fundamental tenet of both U.S. and
Israeli policy, without offering any alternative, suggests either a lack
of understanding or a lack of seriousness. Either way, the statement
calls for your urgent clarification.

In your letter earlier today to Donald J. Trump and me, you
state that you were “taken aback” by my comment that a “two state
solution was an answer, but not the only answer,” to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am happy to engage in a discussion with
you on the subject, which I believe is more detailed and complex than
either your letter, or my response below, can do justice. Nonetheless, I
am happy to offer some brief summaries of my views.

That a two-state solution has been a part of American foreign
policy for some length of time – something you place great weight upon
-- is, to me, entirely irrelevant. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq were
also part of American foreign policy and I have no doubt that these were
policies you opposed. As I’m sure you recognize, and as we witnessed
this past week with the brutal murder of Hallel Ariel as she lay
sleeping in her bed, followed the next day by the murder of Rabbi
Michael Mark, a father of 10, the numerous proposals and initiatives for
a two-state solution over the years have brought neither peace nor
security to the State of Israel.

The issue confronting both the Israelis and the Palestinians is
fundamentally humanitarian in nature. It is not political and it is not
geographic. Both peoples are entitled to live in peace and dignity, and
both peoples are being deprived of those fundamental rights because of
one thing and one thing only – radical Islamic jihadism, a cancer that
infects Israel and much of the rest of the world. No re-allocation of
land will cure this scourge, and, indeed, Israel knew no peace from 1948
to 1967 when it did not even control Judea and Samaria.

So what should we do? Should we continue to force a square peg
into a round hole and demand that Israel cede land to Palestinians in
exchange for a naked promise that the Palestinians will change their
behavior? Are you not concerned that Mahmoud Abbas has no electoral
mandate (his term expired six years ago), and that his justification for
not calling for new elections is that he will be replaced by an even
more violent jihadist? Are you not concerned that Mr. Abbas presides
over ceremonies honoring Palestinian terrorists or that he has been
accused of massive fiscal corruption? Are you not concerned that
Palestinians teach their children to hate and murder Jews, even putting
on school plays enacting such despicable behavior? Are you not concerned
that the Palestinian Authority has no ability to control the Hamas
factions in Hebron, Jenin and Nablus, which continuously assault and
kill Jewish people? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority
pays generous stipends to the families of terrorists who are jailed or
killed after murdering Jews? Are you not concerned, after seeing the
disastrous results of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, that a Palestinian
state on the West Bank will bring missile attacks to the entire
population of Israel?

I know that you have no doubt that the People of Israel want
peace and that they are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, well-informed,
and non-hateful. Given that, are you not concerned that your desire to
divide Israel in two, leaving it without defensible borders, is solidly
rejected by a super-majority of Israelis? Indeed, even many Palestinians
now sensibly prefer Israeli rule to a nascent Palestinian state. Where
but in Israel do Arabs have educational opportunity, first class
healthcare, social and religious freedom and civil rights for women?

There are – and there must be -- other “answers” to a two-state
solution, some short term, some longer. I would begin by making
appropriate demands upon the Palestinians to end terror, incitement and
hateful indoctrination. I would condition further US funding on
meaningful progress in this regard. I would also encourage significant
economic investment in Palestinian communities – a challenge given the
difficulty of identifying non-corrupt leaders but still worth pursuing –
to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. I would improve
infrastructure and commit resources to enhance the quality of life for
every inhabitant of the region. Simply put, I would focus on what most
Palestinians and Israelis care the most about – better living conditions
and better opportunities. If and when those initiatives bear fruit and
tensions are reduced, talks could continue about long term solutions.

But, even then, I must reject categorically your statement that
Israel must either be a democratic state or a Jewish state. The numbers
simply do not support that conclusion. The Jewish population of
pre-1967 Israel is now about 6.3 million out of 8.4 million people –
about 75%. The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is
another 700,000 people out of about 2.4 million people (it may be lower
as many think the Arab population is overstated). Thus, the Jewish
population of the entire region is about 7.0 million out of 10.8 million
– still a solid 65% majority. (By the way, many people quote all kinds
of numbers for the West Bank population – these are, I believe, the most
accurate)

I’m not saying, one way or the other, that a “one state
solution” is the correct path. That is a decision for the Israeli people
to make in consultation with the Palestinians. But it is simply not
true that Jews will become a minority in their own land if a two-state
solution is not implemented. Indeed, given the demands of the
Palestinians for a return of so-called “refugees,” even the two-state
solution they envision would provide no demographic certainty to Israeli
Jews.

Let’s not grandstand this issue any more with “open letters”
that I can’t help but feel have more to do with American politics than
doing what’s best for Israel. Let’s have a cup of coffee (or some
Israeli wine) and continue the dialogue.

Respectfully,David Friedman

Sounds like Dave has been reading CarolineGlick and YoramEttinger, while Jacobs is still living under the two-state delusion. Zeir gut gezogt (very well said).

Links to this post:

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com